Talk:Causal loop

Doctor Who - Before the Flood

The Bootstrap Paradox was central to an episode of Doctor Who (Before the Flood), which first aired on 10th October 2015. Like many Whovians, I arrived here after Googling it. Following the show, this article is undergoing fairly rapid edits from anonymous users, so I'm watching it carefully to see what Gnomish clean-up activity needs doing, whilst standing by and letting the Doctor Who fans flesh out the actual content. I guess that makes me a WhoviGnome. Hopscotch23 (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Harry Potter

I notice that the casual loop featured in Prisoner of Azkaban is used, but the Prophecy from the series which lead the main antagonist to go and kill Harry was a Self Fulfilling Prophecy and is a good example of this. Should it be included? I would add it myself, but my contributions usually get ignored... --86.182.44.127 (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

star trek

This appears to be factually incorrect as, while the paradox does apply to the existence of tranparent aluminum in the future, the formula was payment for the old fashioned polymer stuff in stock. While this isn't explicitly stated in the film it is noted that Scotty noticed it in stock ( as in saw what he needed) and did not deny that the formula was the path to the process it would still take years for the guy to figure out. Further, the factory could not have retooled in two days, not would the thing even cool in that period. This needs to be fixed or cited.108.249.235.44 (talk)

bender's big score

the code on fry's butt is put there by bender, who teared it off fry's butt in the future not sure if it's actually in bender's big score — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2437:8700:F1C6:8C3F:2AD2:F0F0 (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

* It is Bender's Big Score and it's 'tore' it off, not 'teared' it off. --86.182.44.127 (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Example farms

Examples must be prominent according to reliable third party sources. Citing every single example you can think of gives undue weight to these examples, when they don't have a major influence on the topic. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The examples have all been deleted by an anonymous editor. The examples are the topic. This is a page about a sci fi plot device. If for example it was a page about nuclear melt down the criticism would be valid. Undelete please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.198.199 (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Causal loops are not exclusively a sci-fi plot device, they are an actively researched topic in physics, the same way closed timelike curves are. Even if it were a sci-fi plot device exclusively, that does not mean the page suddenly turns into TVTropes. Specifically:

Writing an encyclopedic entry about a subject will involve generalizations. Avoid the temptation to engage in original research by finding every example of a phenomenon, or every exception to a phenomenon.

Please do not list every occurrence of causal loops "in popular culture". The two examples given are cited as important examples, one for popularizing the term "bootstrap paradox" and the other for being a well-known example from antiquity, exemplifying the Greek notion of fate. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this article should have more information about the subject itself, especially if it is indeed an actively researched topic in physics. I don't have a problem with the number of examples, but I would prefer it if they were put into chronological order, so that the reader can see what might have influenced later stories. Kookiethebird (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I've changed my mind as I've just discovered an article called List of films featuring time loops, so I think all but just one or two core examples should be removed from this article and put into their own list. Kookiethebird (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems that a beloved science fiction character told a very large audience to look up this article. The result is that it went from this to this.

I really do appreciate the efforts of the various new users who have come here. My concern is that while a couple of examples of its use in fiction are helpful the an article on Causal loops a section trying to list every single sci-fi occurrence of this is distracting to the subject at hand. The section is longer than the article.

I think we need to significantly reduce the number of fiction examples. We should establish a consensus here so we can get past this page protection. HighInBC 18:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of my second comment from above? Kookiethebird (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I did not see this section. I have moved our comments here, I hope you don't mind. I agree that List of films featuring time loops would be a far more on-topic place for these. HighInBC 19:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking that there could be a separate list for causal loop examples in tv and film. Kookiethebird (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be better to rename it something that covers both. I don't think it is such a big topic that it needs two articles. HighInBC 21:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Just remove the section as it has no references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigsofrods (talk • contribs) 21:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll point out the relevant Wikipedia policies:

• WP:V - all uncited information should be removed. That includes all but one paragraph in the "Bootstrap paradox in fiction" section.
• WP:SYNTH - cited examples that do not contain a description of the way they're relevant to the article (meaning, the subject of causal loops) should not be "expanded" by the editor to make them fit. For example this citation (the only citation in the "Bootstrap paradox in fiction" section) does not describe how the movie is relevant to the topic of causal loops at all. The editor who added that example made that inference themselves, which is against Wikipedia policy.
• WP:UNDUE - filling an article with examples gives them undue weight. The article should be a summary (WP:SS) of the topic, not a list of minor or tangential examples.

The section in general might be considered an "example farm", a bunch of examples that have little or no significant impact on the topic. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree that a long (inviting a longer) list of examples is counter productive. The examples in themselves should be significant in their own right. In that respect I'd say the Heinlein example qualifies as providing a name for the paradox. Frankly, I think the Doctor Who reference for "Under The Lake"/ "Before The Flood" also qualifies as the paradox is specifically mentioned by the title character while breaking the 4th wall - and telling people to Google it (causing this schmozzle). The rest are currently not notable enough for more than a list by title (each referenced) with no explanation - if that.

As for calls just to unilaterally delete unreferenced examples immediately, surely it's better to see if someone will add one in the near future - providing it is kept due to relevance. WeepingAngel63 (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Per comments on this page I have removed the entire section on fiction. Per WeepingAngel's suggestion I have incorporated the doctor who episode in Draft:Causal loop, and will wait for others to comment on whether this is appropriate or not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think a single sentence mentioning all the other examples would be good. That would be a reasonable compromise for me. Kookiethebird (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Shoving all the examples together without a reference (or even with a reference for each) is against Wikipedia policy WP:SYNTH. You should put them in list of time travel science fiction. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

How would it be WP:SYNTH if there was a reference for each one? Kookiethebird (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

They would have to each be significant. Having a conglomerate of examples does not make each of them significant, and deducing that they're significant together because of their sheer number is synthesis. The Heinlein example is significant for popularizing the name "bootstrap paradox", the Oedipus example is slightly less significant but still significant as a prominent example from antiquity. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Why do they each have to be significant? What's wrong with have a single sentence at the end of a rather short article giving some more examples? Let's face it, this is mainly a concept that is found in sci-fi. If there is much about it in science, there certainly isn't in the article. Kookiethebird (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This feels like Wikipedia:Recentism. Even assuming the example is significant, the cited source is of very low quality: "essentially the theory goes that there must have been an original sequence of events in which Beethoven [...] wrote the Fifth Symphony." This is false and entirely misses the concept of a causal loop. See the billiard ball example in which the ball travels through a closed timelike curve and strikes itself. There is no "original sequence of events", there is only one sequence of events where the ball strikes its former self. Similarly see the section "time loop logic" where a computer supplies input to its former self, forcing the output to be a either fixed point or undetermined or a superposition of states. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to say, I think you're a bit overly bothered about the guidelines. I would reckon that this is the kind of thing that puts off new people from becoming editors. And that actually is of relevance to the last guideline you mentioned. From the Wikipedia:Recentism page: What might seem at the time to be an excessive amount of information on recent topics actually serves the purpose of drawing in new readers—and among them, potential new Wikipedians. I know that sometimes people rush to edit Wikipedia after something happens, but that Doctor Who episode did directly mention this topic, and so I really don't see why it's a big deal to mention the episode. Kookiethebird (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm bothered by non-significant examples in articles. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Martin's (MSGJ) draft. I think it says what needs to be said in the long term. Now, whether we then want a separate list of notable examples... WeepingAngel63 (talk) 06:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The standard should be "Does this content add to the understanding of the topic of the article", simply being a notable example of the subject does not meet this standard by itself. I think that further fictional references add zero to the article's topic. The current references to use in a few fictional works is plenty. We should not bias towards the recent, in the long run yet another Doctor Who episode is not that significant in the universe of fiction. HighInBC 02:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 October 2015

Request deleting "questioning the paradox" from the end of the Doctor Who paragraph. No one is "questioning" the paradox. The Doctor explains the paradox and episode narrative provides an example of it. 98.211.54.119 (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 October 2015

please remove the Bootstrap paradox in fiction" section Rigsofrods (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle policy requires that this change be removed as it was a bold edit made with little to no references and against Wikipedia policies, discussed above. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: This section has been removed and restored by multiple editors. You'll need to discuss it and get consensus for its removal. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Another protected edit request on 14 October 2015

Again please remove the Bootstrap paradox in fiction" section because it has no references Rigsofrods (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rigsofrods: Please join the discussion above: #Example_farms. Once we establish a consensus we can change the page. HighInBC 21:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Information paradox, jinn, and boostrap paradox should all be a single section

All of these are terms related to the selfsame concept of a causal loop in which one has objects or information with no apparent origin, whose history exists in a loop. Keep in mind the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy--wikipedia entries that wish to explain terms should incorporate the explanations into a substantive discussion of the subject, not be written like a glossary of terms. So if terms are either synonymous or describe different aspects of the same idea (like a term for this type of paradox vs. a term for the objects involved in this type of paradox), they should be mentioned in a single section about that idea, not given a bunch of separate sections.

The term "bootstrap paradox" may be a slightly ambiguous case since it is sometimes used both to refer to the above notion of objects/information that exist in a loop, and to refer more generally to events being their own cause (i.e. any type of causal loop whatsoever). However, the first usage seems to have historical precedence, given that the earliest reference we have for it is the 1996 book Lorentzian Wormholes by physicist Matt Visser. I would argue that the references we have also suggests this usage is more common, given that the references by Visser, Allen/Roman, Klosterman, and arguably Kelley (although Kelley doesn't use the full phrase 'bootstrap paradox', just brings up Heinlein's story 'By His Bootstraps' in relations to objects/information without origin) all support this usage, while the only support we have for the idea of "bootstrap paradox" being used for any type of causal loop is a glossary entry in Toomey, and even that is slightly ambiguous because it does bring up the idea of jinns: "bootstrap paradoxes Any of a variety of conditions that, by way of futureward and pastward time travel, in effect become their own cause and may produce a jinn." So I think there's a pretty strong case for putting "bootstrap paradox" in the section on objects and information with no origin, while also mentioning as an aside that the term is sometimes assigned a broader meaning.

As for "ontological paradox", its usage seems to be ambiguous--the only reference we have for it in the article at the moment is the Morgenstern paper, but she does not actually define what she means by "ontological paradox" in this paper, just says that some of the "best known" time travel paradoxes are "the grandfather/autoinfanticide paradox (Barjavel 1943; Horwich 1987), the predestination paradox (Novikov 1998), and related closed loop and ontological paradoxes." (she does later define what she means by 'predestination paradox' though, so it's useful as a reference for that section) I found another reference to the ontological paradox on this page of The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Time, which says "The related ontological paradox can be exemplified by the story of the unpainted painting" and proceeds to describe a painting whose existence is a loop (a 'Jinnee'), but it doesn't actually give a general example so it's unclear whether the author intends "ontological paradox" to refer solely to objects with no origin or whether he would include information as well. Still, this reference might justify mentioning the term in the same section. Hypnosifl (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Why would you spread out one reference over six different ref tags (and another over four)? Why take several distinct topics and put them all together in random arrangement when they were ordered into subsections (subsections are not against WP:NOTDIC)? Why put the bold back despite agreeing it's against MOS? Overall it seems like a poorly-thought-out revert. The article was more organized and more compliant with Wikipedia policies before you reverted my edits. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I explained the reason for wanting the references to be separate in my edit note--because the references are to different page numbers, and when a given page was available to read on google books, I wanted each reference to include a link to the appropriate google books page so people could easily check what the reference said. In cases where no google books preview was available for the pages being cited (the Toomey book), I did consolidate the references. Anyway, I'm open to debate on this point, this wasn't my main reason for the revert. As for bolding, I did change terms like "bootstrap paradox" and "information paradox" to italics rather than bold, as per your link to the MOS--I see now that I forgot to do the same for "predestination paradox" when I did the edits on the revert, but I've gone ahead and fixed that now.

As for consolidating the subsections into one, I explained my reasoning above--I never said subsections were automatically against WP:NOTDIC, but my point is that I think respecting the spirit of WP:NOTDIC should mean using subsections only for conceptually different topics, not merely for different terms associated with a single concep, in this case the concept that causal loops can involve objects and information with no origin. Do you disagree, and thing it's OK to have subsections merely for different terms for the same concept? Hypnosifl (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The spirit of NOTDIC is not to create articles. The subsections give the article structure, as opposed to being a conglomerate of references. If you don't want "bootstrap paradox" to be the first section, that's fine, it just seemed to me that it's the prominent name for causal loops in fiction. If it isn't, a different header can be used. Singling out "predestination paradox" but not all the other terms seems contradictory. And please use shortened citations if you insist on linking to Google Books. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems like you're still not understanding my point, I have no problem with subsections for different concepts related to the article, I only object to subjections whose sole purpose is to describe different terms, even if the terms deal with exactly the same concept. A paradox involving objects or information without origin is conceptually different than a paradox involving a time traveler whose actions in the past are the cause of them going back in time in the first place, that's why I wanted to have one section for the first concept, which would deal with terms associated with this concept (bootstrap paradox, information paradox, Jinn, and possibly the ontological paradox) and another section for the second concept (which is usually called the predestination paradox). If you just want to change the title of the first section to "bootstrap paradox" since that may be the most commonly-used term, I would have no problem with that (though it would require reorganizing the section a bit so that it's the term that is mentioned first, rather than last). But if you think "bootstrap paradox" and "information paradox" should be separate subsections despite being synonymous terms, I think that is running afoul of the spirit of NOTDIC (and if you think they are not really synonymous, please explain the conceptual difference).

As for shortened citations, that's a good idea--I'll work on changing it to that format. Hypnosifl (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Update: I shortened the citations as you suggested, and also changed the order of some things in the section on items with no origin, so that bootstrap paradox is the first term mentioned. Then I changed the title to "bootstrap paradox". Hopefully this removes most of your objections, but let me know if you still think that section should be broken up into multiple sections. Hypnosifl (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I see you merged the predestination paradox into the others, saying you think there is no conceptual difference. But I would say there is--if I go back in time to 1666 because I have learned about the Great Fire of London, but then during the course of my adventures in 1666 I inadvertently start the fire, this would fit the definition of the predestination paradox, but I don't see any obvious sense in which it's a bootstrap paradox. What item of information has no origin in this case? And even if one makes a case that all predestination paradoxes involve information with no origin, this would seem to be original research unless some published source makes this case, whereas the published sources do connect the various terms in the bootstrap paradox section to one another. Hypnosifl (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

"What item of information has no origin in this case?" The Great Fire of London. If you follow Novikov's reasoning, there is no difference between information, event, and object. They can all be represented the same way physically. You created the Great Fire of London (shame on you) because of the Great Fire of London, which you created... This is not original research, this is cited in the article. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll use a chart to illustrate how they're all the same.

term	example	indeterminate origin of
"event"/"bootstrap"	billiard ball	the ball's trajectory (for the trajectory to exist, the trajectory had to exist always)
"information"	mathematical proof	the proof (for the proof to exist, the proof had to exist always)
"ontological"/"object"	watch	the watch (for the watch to exist, the watch had to exist always)
"predestination"	Great Fire of London	the Great Fire of London (for the fire to exist, the fire had to exist always)

In all of these examples, a physical quantity has an indeterminate origin, it doesn't matter what shape it takes. An "event" is a change in some physical quantity, "information" is a physical quantity, objects are physical quantities, and the Great Fire of London is made up of many physical quantities. The way the angle of the ball's trajectory has an indeterminate object is equivalent to the way the mathematical proof, the watch, and the Great Fire of London have an indeterminate origin. They all exist because of themselves... that's why it's called a causal loop. I believe you added the citation for this yourself.

The only different concept is infallible knowledge. Infallible knowledge does not create a causal loop in and of itself, but it does raise the possibility, among its other logical problems. This is cited in Craig, which I admit is not the most lucid explanation, but it should be clear that infallible knowledge is a different concept and that it can lead to causal loops, while all the "kinds" of causal loops are the same kind - a physical quantity that has an indeterminate origin, not because we don't know its origin, but because we know the origin is indeterminate because it is its own cause. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Found the paper online. Page 2312, the "Jinnee" describes a physical system whose world line loops through the same point in spacetime. That physical system can be an object, an event, information, or any other name for a physical quantity. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It still seems like original research to cite Lossev/Novikov in favor of this claim--Lossev/Novikov just says there's no clear distinction between physical jinn and informational jinn, but I don't see that this comment clearly implies that the fire would be any type of jinnee in this case, given that I started it completely accidentally (say, because I tripped and knocked over an oil lamp), not for any reason directly connected to the information about the great fire that exists in my head. You could say there is some weak causal connection because I wouldn't have been present in 1666 at all if not for knowledge of the Great Fire, but it's not clear that's enough. Take Everett's example of the mathematical proof: what if instead of actually giving the mathematician the proof, I just go back because I want to meet him, and in conversation I happen to let slip that I am interested in some mathematical problem, and that inspires him to think about the problem which in turn is one of the sources of inspiration for the proof? Is the proof a jinnee in this case? He still had to work hard to think it up, it doesn't seem to have no origin in the same sense as the original example where I just gave the full proof to him. You can construct an argument to say that all cases like this involve jinn (as you did above--and I should add that I actually find your argument pretty plausible myself), but this seems like a sufficiently non-trivial deduction that in order to avoid violating the "no original research" policy, I think you need a source saying explicitly that all causal loops involve jinn or bootstrap paradoxes (or saying that all cases where time travelers are inspired to go back in time because of X and also have some slight causal influence on X constitute jinn/bootstrap paradoxes).

In any case, even if all predestination paradoxes are bootstrap paradoxes, it seems like the reverse is not true--one can come up with bootstrap paradoxes where my original motive to travel to a particular date had nothing to do with the event I would later cause. So even if a predestination paradox is a particular sub-type of bootstrap paradoxes, I still don't think it would violate the spirit of NOTDIC to have them in separate sub-sections since there's nothing wrong with putting a more general type in a different section from a particular sub-type. Hypnosifl (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Also worth noting: in the 1992 Lossev/Novikov paper introducing the idea of Jinn, the abstract says "a new type of self-consistent evolution in the spacetime with a time machine is discussed"--i.e. they apparently considered this a distinct "type" from the older type that had already been discovered, which included the scenario with a billiard ball hitting its younger self which is illustrated in the current introduction of the causal loop wiki page. This earlier type of self-consistent solution had been published in an earlier 1991 paper which shows up as reference 11 in the Lossev/Novikov paper. And in section 1.4 on page 2311, after just having gotten through discussing earlier self-consistent solutions like the one in the 1991 paper, Lossev/Novikov say "The purpose of this paper is to propose a qualitatively new idea for constructing self-consistent solutions" to time machine problems. You could make a reasonable case that this is just because they failed to think through the implications of their comments about self-reproducing information (since even in the older type, the angle, velocity and time that the billiard ball exits the wormhole can be thought of as a type of information that gives rise to itself), but I think this shows that the Lossev/Novikov paper is not in itself a good reference for the claim that all causal loops involve Jinn. Hypnosifl (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it just seems you don't understand what's a causal connection.

"given that I started it completely accidentally" - you mean you caused it?

"I happen to let slip that I am interested in some mathematical problem, and that inspires him" - you mean you caused him to think about it?

"non-trivial deduction" - it's literally spelled out in the paper I linked.

"I think you need a source saying explicitly that all causal loops involve jinn or bootstrap paradoxes" - you are phrasing it backwards. All "jinn" are causal loops. All bootstrap paradoxes are causal loops.

All causal loops involve a loop in causation. All loops in causation have an indeterminate origin. The first two references in this article explicitly stated that until you swapped them out, but the references are still in the article. Sometimes causal loops have objects with indeterminate origin. Sometimes events. Sometimes information. The Novikov reference clearly states that there is no physical difference between these "types". BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Lobo: "The paradoxes associated with causal loops are related to self-existing information or objects, trapped in spacetime." - this was the first reference in the article, and it's probably the best reference because it's peer-reviewed, concise, and cited by many other papers. "Jinn", "predestination paradox", "bootstrap paradox", and "ontological paradox" are different names for objects, events, and information with an indeterminate, self-existing existence in spacetime.

Smith: "Backwards time travel would apparently allow for the possibility of causal loops, in which things come from nowhere. The things in question might be objects—[...], information—[...], actions" - this was the second reference in the article, and it's probably the second-best, since it's peer-reviewed and was published by the reliable Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Unfortunately these two very good references were pushed down and replaced with mediocre references, and now we're having this multi-thousand-word discussion about the very core of the article, that was very easily avoidable if these references had remained prominent in the article. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of this discussion it doesn't matter whether "I", a particular human organism, caused the mathematician to think about an issue that led him to working on the proof, all that matters is whether the information contained in the proof can be said to have self-replicated (Lossev/Novikov use the phrase 'self-reproducing system' for Jinnee of the second kind) from my brain into his, and this isn't obviously the case since he had to come up with most of the details of the proof independently.

Yes, I agree all bootstrap paradoxes are causal loops, but the issue is whether all causal loops are bootstrap paradoxes, if a bootstrap paradox is a particular sub-type of causal loop (so not all causal loops are bootstrap paradoxes), and a predestination paradox is either a different sub-type (so there would be some non-overlapping region with 'bootstrap paradox' on a Venn diagram) or itself a sub-type of bootstrap paradoxes (so on a Venn diagram 'predestination paradox' would be a smaller circle within the larger 'bootstrap paradox' circle), then I think this justifies giving boostrap paradox and predestination paradox distinct sub-sections within the article.

Are you citing Lobo and Smith to justify the idea that causal loops are synonymous with bootstrap paradoxes, i.e. it's not possible to have any type of causal loop that is not a bootstrap paradox? If so it seems to me that neither clearly says that. The Lobo quote saying that "The paradoxes associated with causal loops are related to self-existing information or objects" doesn't actually say that all causal loops involve these types of paradoxes, it could be interpreted as saying that when there is a paradox associated with a causal loop, this is related to self-existing information or objects. And with the Smith quote "allow for causal loops, in which things come from nowhere" it isn't totally clear whether it's saying time travel would "allow" for a particular type of causal loop "in which things come from nowhere" or if it's saying all causal loops involve things coming from nowhere. The placement of the comma would certainly suggest the latter, but this doesn't seem clear-cut enough to qualify as a solid reference for the key issue we are debating, whether all causal loops involve physical/informational Jinn. Also, in that quote Smith says "things come from nowhere" rather than objects or information, and later when Smith says "The things in question might be objects—[...], information—[...], actions" it's not clearly saying that "actions" coming from nowhere would necessarily imply information or objects coming from nowhere (I think it should given a reasonably broad definition of 'information', but the reference doesn't say how it's defining information). All the references we have for terms like "bootstrap paradox" and "Jinn" specifically talk about information or objects with no origin, none of them say that you would automatically have a bootstrap paradox/Jinn if there were "actions" without origin.

One last point is that since the usage of "paradox" in this case seems not to refer to a clear-cut logical paradox, but rather to the first definition here of "a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth", it isn't clear that the presence of a "bootstrap paradox" must be a black and white matter. Even though I agree with your basic point that all causal loops would involve some degree of information without origin (though I disagree that the Smith and Lobo articles are satisfactory references for such a claim), cases where some complex structured information (like a full mathematical proof) has no origin outside the loop seem far more "absurd" than situations involving much simpler or more random-seeming bits of information that can be said to have no origin (like the angle of a billiard ball coming out of a wormhole). Likewise, a single electron whose history forms a loop seems a lot less absurd, and therefore less paradoxical in the sense above, then the watch example from Somewhere in Time. So conceptually, part of the point of terms like "bootstrap paradox" and "Jinn" may be to highlight the more absurd types of cases involving complex structured information or objects, even if it's technically true that all causal loops involve some type of information Jinnee. Again I would point to the Lossev/Novikov paper--why do you think they referred to their Jinn solutions as a "qualitatively new idea for constructing self-consistent solutions" (p. 2311), after they had just got through discussing preexisting self-consistent solutions of exactly the kind seen in the image from the opening section of the wiki article? Can you give your own interpretation of what "qualitatively new" might mean in this context, if you think it's obvious and trivial that all causal loops involve bootstrap paradoxes/Jinn? Hypnosifl (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we're getting sidetracked, and I guess we'll have to go over the entire article sentence by sentence.

"A causal loop, [...] people)" - entirely supported by the references

"in which an event [...] first-mentioned event" - entirely supported by the references

"Such causally-looped events [...] altered its path" - entirely supported by the references, uses "time machine" instead of the more complex (and accurate) general relativity terms such as wormhole, closed timelike curve, etc., but these terms are called a "time machine" in the reference too

"A causal loop [...] form a closed loop" - entirely supported by the references

"Several authors [...] and predestination paradox" - entirely supported by the references, doesn't make any claims about the use of these terms except that they are used.

"The use of [...] By His Bootstraps" - entirely supported, no claims about how the term is used, only that it refers to that particular story.

"A 1992 paper [...] system of looped objects" - entirely supported, every word is from the references.

"in the case of continuous [...] its atoms every year" - haven't read the references and I think they miss the point, almost entirely

"The term predestination paradox [...] outcomes were predetermined" - haven't read the citations and it just seems like Star Trek fluff (like the 12 Monkeys fluff I added, so it's not necessarily bad, just not very on topic except for "hey here's an example from fiction")

"Smeenk and Morgenstern [...] cause that same event" - entirely supported by the reference

Examples section - entirely supported by the references

Self-fulfilling prophecy section - almost entirely supported by references, the link to Newcomb's paradox is uncited in that particular instance but several sources mention Newcom's paradox in this regard and this can be easily cited.

Novikov self-consistency principle section - almost entirely supported by references except for the last sentence, which I feel explains what the fudge the self-consistency principle has to do with causal loops (everything).

So if the above is fine, the rest of the discussion is useless.

Now, some comments about your reply:

"self-replicated" - this is wrong, you misunderstand the term "self-reproducing". No replication is taking place.

"the issue is whether all causal loops are bootstrap paradoxes" - why is this an issue? It's not an issue anywhere in the article as it currently stands. The answer is "bootstrap paradox is a term in fiction, not a scientific term, and this has no concrete meaning." Either way this is in no way expressed or implied in the article.

"causal loops are synonymous with bootstrap paradoxes" - the article as it currently stands doesn't say this, so there's no issue. [edit - but if it were to say that, it could use Visser as s reference. 19:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)]

"a particular type of causal loop" - there are no particular types; the distinctions are purely in fiction. All the physics references treat causal loops as one concept. The Jinn are physical systems who return to the same point in spacetime; the Jinnee "of the first kind" and "of the second kind" are equivalent according to the reference, they only make the distinction to show that it's null.

"it isn't totally clear whether it's saying [...] all causal loops involve things coming from nowhere" - this is literally what it means when something is its own cause. When something is its own cause, it is "coming from nowhere".

"none of them say that you would automatically have a bootstrap paradox/Jinn if there were 'actions' without origin" - the billiard ball is an example of an action without origin, from the very article in which Novikov discusses Jinns. How did the billiard ball's trajectory come about? From the glancing blow. How did the glancing blow come about? From the angle in which the billiard ball moves. We have an action (the change in direction, the glancing blow) which is its own cause. There is yet another (relatively bad) example in Smith's paper, but frankly if that's not good enough for you than the entire article is worthless, because all the other papers, articles, and books rely on Novikov to a very large extent.

"the usage of paradox" - the article makes no claim about the usage of the word paradox. Another non-issue.

"I disagree that the Smith and Lobo articles are satisfactory references" - they are by far the two best references in the article outside of the work of Novikov et al. Lobo's articles are peer-reviewed and cited by many other works, which is the golden standard on Wikipedia for a quality source. Smith's is published in the highly regarded Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. So if you don't think they're good enough, well...

"what 'qualitatively new' might mean in this context" - Why not read the paper? "The purpose of this paper is to propose a qualitively new idea for constructing self-consistent solutions of equations of motion that can arise in presence of TM. These new solutions are based on the hypothesis of the existence of motion of subsystems (below we will call them the Jinn of the TM, or simply Jinn) along closed world lines." The Jinn are not the new ideas. The way to construct self-consistent solutions for the equations of motion are the new ideas. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

this is wrong, you misunderstand the term "self-reproducing". No replication is taking place. -- Sure it is, any time information is copied from one physical substrate to another--whether an organism having offspring that contain much of the same genetic information, or copying a computer file from one hard drive to another--it is standard to say a "replication" of the information has taken place. And that is clearly the case in the original Everett/Roman example with the mathematician, since initially the information about the proof existed in my brain but not his, then after I showed him the proof, the information existed in his brain as well. On the other hand, in the example where I just make an offhand remark that sparks a thought process that leads him to derive the proof, the information wasn't just copied from my mind to his in the same direct sense, so it's not as clear this is an example of the information just being "replicated".

"causal loops are synonymous with bootstrap paradoxes" - the article as it currently stands doesn't say this, so there's no issue. -- You have edited it to say "Several authors refers to causal loops by the term bootstrap paradox", which clearly implies that these authors, at least, consider the terms to be synonymous. The previous version was "A causal loop could potentially involve items of information or even physical objects that have no specific origin because their histories form a closed loop. This is often referred to by the term bootstrap paradox"--the point of having "potentially" there was to remain agnostic on the question of whether all causal loops involve objects or information with no origin, since although the references do clearly say a "bootstrap paradox" is defined to be a causal loop involving objects or information with no origin, they don't clearly say one way or another whether the authors think all causal loops fit this description.

"a particular type of causal loop" - there are no particular types; the distinctions are purely in fiction. -- As I already mentioned, the Lossev/Novikov paper refers to a "qualitatively new idea for constructing self-consistent solutions", immediately after a discussion of older self-consistent solutions like the one in the image in the introduction to the wiki article; do you think it would be wrong to paraphrase this as a "qualitatively new type of self-consistent solution"?

"none of them say that you would automatically have a bootstrap paradox/Jinn if there were 'actions' without origin" - the billiard ball is an example of an action without origin, from the very article in which Novikov discusses Jinn. -- The billiard ball example from the image in the introduction is indeed discussed in the Lossev/Novikov article, but they discuss it in section 1.2 and 1.3 before their discussion of Jinn, and then at the beginning of section 1.4 is where we find the line "The purpose of this paper is propose a qualitatively new idea for constructing self-consistent solutions"--i.e. new compared to the previous type of self-consistent solution they discussed earlier, like the billiard ball hitting its earlier self.

"the usage of paradox" - the article makes no claim about the usage of the word paradox. Another non-issue. -- Again, your edits make it sound like people use "bootstrap paradox" as a synonym for "causal loop". Also, your justification in this edit for merging "predestination paradox" with the discussion of bootstrap paradox/Jinn was that "There is no conceptual distinction between the Star Trek term and the other terms", and when I pointed to an example of scenario that would fit the predestination paradox but wouldn't involve an obvious bootstrap paradox (the Great Fire of London example), you replied "If you follow Novikov's reasoning, there is no difference between information, event, and object". So my point here about the use of the word paradox is that even though I accept the point that all causal loops must involve some degree of information in a loop (though I don't think the sources clearly state this), it's not really clear whether authors who use the term "bootstrap paradox" would say that any amount of looped information constitutes a bootstrap paradox, or only certain particularly complex and ordered items of information which have no origin outside the loop, which seem more inexplicable and therefore paradoxical.

"I disagree that the Smith and Lobo articles are satisfactory references" - they are by far the two best references in the article outside of the work of Novikov et al. Lobo's articles are peer-reviewed and cited by many other works, which is the golden standard on Wikipedia for a quality source. Smith's is published in the highly regarded Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. So if you don't think they're good enough, well... -- You are failing to distinguish between the statement "this is not a good reference" and "this is not a good reference for a particular claim" (for example, neither Lobo or Smith would make a good reference for the claim 'cats are mammals', since they don't even address that subject). I agree that Lobo and Smith are good references in themselves, just not for the particular claims you are making, since it is not entirely clear that either reference is actually making the same claims that you are. And I explained my argument by parsing what they wrote, you didn't address any of that.

The Jinn are not the new ideas. The way to construct self-consistent solutions for the equations of motion are the new ideas. -- What "way to construct self-consistent solutions" are you talking about, if not "self-consistent solutions involving Jinn"? The paper doesn't describe any new mathematical approaches or new physics equations, the only difference between their self-consistent solutions and the previous self-consistent solutions is that their solutions involve Jinn. If you disagree, please provide a quote discussing a specific new "way" that could be seen to differ from the old "way" even if we define both old and new solutions to involve Jinn.

Also note that Toomey's book seems to share the idea that what made the Lossev/Novikov paper new and interesting was the presence of Jinn. After a discussion of the self-consistent billiard ball scenarios which had bee published prior to the Lossev/Novikov paper, Toomey writes on p. 196 that "Even as Novikov was shoring up the principle of self-consistency, he and a physicist named Andrei Lossev were pushing it into new territory ... Lossev and Novikov had borrowed the word [Jinn] and adopted it to describe something that, most would probably agree, merited its own name. It was an entity that could be produced, quite literally, from nothing." The discussion then details the idea of Jinn and the bootstrap paradox, without suggesting any other aspect of the Lossev/Novikov paper that might make it "new territory". Hypnosifl (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation style

Hi, please abide by Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations. The article needs to use either short citations (fine by me), parenthetical referencing (ugly, but fine by me), or basic footnotes (my preferred style and the predominant style on Wikipedia). We can't mix-and-match these styles. BrightRoundCircle (talk)